—
Part YI.
—Dogs.
395
Sect. 1. not considered to be the ordinary nature of a dog to injure or cattle therefore formerly the owner was not At Common Law. liable for any such injuries without proof being given of his knowledge of the dangerous and vicious propensity of his dog. The law Injuries to has been altered by statute as regards injuries to cattle (r), but is mankind unaltered as regards injuries to mankind. In the absence of proof proof of scienter. of scienter^ a dog may still have what is popularly called " his first " in this respect there is no difference between dogs bite at a man and other domestic animals (s). It is
either
mankind
Sub-Sect.
856. The owner
Trespass by Dogs.
2.
not answerable in trespass for its No unauthorised entry into the land of another, often described as an
dog
of a
is
unprovoked trespass {t). But if a man wilfully send a dog on another man's land in pursuit of game he is liable in trespass, although he did not himself go on the land {u). So also if he allow a dog to roam at large, knowing it
action
^f^^j^^^^^Q^ iand.°
be addicted to destroying game {x). The trespassing dog, if doing damage to the property of the owners of the land, may be seized as a distress damage feasant (y) although at the time it was in the possession and under the personal control of and being used by the owner (z). to
shoot, or injure another man's dog without legal No right an actionable wrong at common law. It is no legal [yeg^assinc' ° In order legally to dog. justification that the dog was trespassing (a). justify such an act it must be proved that it was done under
857. To
kill,
justification is
(r)
See p. 397,
j^ost.
The whole subject is dealt with fully, p. 372, ante. Et est uu ditference inter uii chein et auters avers
(s)
'
{t)
'
si
un chein vaer
en vostre terre naveres action" (pe?^ Littleton, J., in Milieu v. Faivdry[162o), Latch, 119, where the defendant chased sheep off his land with a little dog, which continued chasing them when on the plaintiff's land. The defendant, it
was entitled to chase the sheep off his own land, and if a trespass at would be an involuntary trespass, as he called the dog back. This case is distinguished in Beckwith v. Shordike (1767), 4 Burr. 2092, where a defendant was held liable in trespass for his dog killing a deer, on the ground that the owner took the dog with him and was really the trespasser. See also Mason v. Keeling (1700), 1 Ld. Eaym. 606, at p. 608, where Lord Holt is made to say " The law does not oblige the owner to keep the dog in his house for if a dog break a neighbour's close, the owner will not be subject to an action for it," quoting Milieu, v. Faiudry, supra. Compare ^e?' Willes, J., in Ready. Edwards
was
said,
all, it
andm
6'oa) v. Biirbidge (1863), 13 0. B. (n.s) (1864), 17 0. B. (N. s.) 245, at p. 261, though the point did not really arise in Bead v. Edwards, supra, as it was
there held that the chasing of game was a mischievous propensity, and scienter was proved. See also Broiun v. Giles (1823), 1 0. & P. 118, a.ndL. Sanders v. Teape (1884), 51 L. T. 263, where a big dog jumped over a garden wall and alighted upon the plaintiff, who was digging a well. {u) B. V. Fratt (1855), 4 E. B. 860 ; Dimmock v. Allenhy, cited in Deane v. Clayton (1816), 2 Marsh, at p. 582.
430
(x)
Bead
[y]
See pp. 378
[z)
v.
Bunch
Edwards, supra.
V.
et seq.,
ante.
Kenningtoti (1841),
1
Q. B. 679; Boden v. Roscoe, [1894]
1
U. B.
608. (a) See cases cited in notes 62 J. P. 522.
[h)
and
(c),
p. 396, post,
and Moore
v.
Clarke (1898),
